> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Laganier, Julien > Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2009 2:05 PM > To: Carsten Bormann; Behcet Sarikaya > Cc: Internet Area > Subject: Re: [Int-area] intarea charter > > Carsten Bormann wrote: > > > > On Oct 1, 2009, at 18:49, Behcet Sarikaya wrote: > > > > > Maybe other areas like TSV have specific reasons to > create a WG like > > > TSVWG which has lots of documents, I don't see the same > in Int-Area. > > > > Note that TSV has both a "general transport stuff" WG > (TSVWG -- *not* > > chaired by the ADs) and tends to meet as TSVAREA (open meeting, no > > deliverables). > > > > I do think the charter proposed would fit an INTWG well. I > would hate > > to lose the open forum style INTAREA, too. > > Why couldn't we retain the open forum part in an INTAREA WG. > Having WG documents and progressing them is not exclusive > with having open discussions on unchartered work -- this is > already happening in many working groups. [Ahmad] If that the case, I do not see the difference from keeping the INTAREA meeting as is and when there is a specific document of interest, the ADs should be able to send it to the respected WG to adopt and follow the usual process. I believe the process in the INTAREA meeting should not be as strict as a regular WG. The ADs should have the flexibility to move/suggest certain documents of interest to other regular working groups more easily. In all cases, that document needs to follow the regular process of the respected wg and have the required consensus, anyway.
Regards, Ahmad > > --julien > _______________________________________________ > Int-area mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area > _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
